dcfandomcom-20200222-history
Category talk:Generals
Do we need this? They don't "work" as generals. They work as members of the military. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 17:40, May 22, 2018 (UTC) :I think we do. I mean to use it not only for modern military characters, but also for other people referred to as generals, like certain Alien invaders, ancient conquerors etc. I think it has a wide scope. Tec15 (talk) 17:55, May 22, 2018 (UTC) ::If we'd have this, then we'd have to have categories for all ranks (perhaps even ranks within the police). It's easier to just have a category for their line of work.KylieMfever (talk) 18:17, May 22, 2018 (UTC) : Why on earth do we have to have categories for all ranks if we have one for Generals? General by itself is a special rank, conferring leadership in the armed forces. Just because we have general, doesn't mean we have to have categories for "Lieutenant", "Corporal", etc. Those ranks don't have any special mystique or significance. No one will want to create categories for them. Tec15 (talk) 18:26, May 22, 2018 (UTC) Alien invaders and ancient conquerors that are referred to as Generals are also Military Characters. I think this is similar to the consolidation of Royalty into one. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 18:18, May 22, 2018 (UTC) : I don't see it that way. Like I said, it's a special rank. We can have categories for "Monocle", but not one for "General", despite numerous characters sporting it as part of their title (General Immortus, General Zod, General Lane, General Eiling, General Philipus, etc)? Give me a break. Folding it into the ultra generic "Military characters", would be the wrong move. It would not distinguish between a common grunt and a military commander, which is what "General" connotes. Why even have special categories for "Pirates", 'Serial Killer", etc then? Why not just merge them into the generic "Criminals" category? This wiki loses something with this sort of attitude imo. It becomes more sterile and distinctly not fun. Tec15 (talk) 18:41, May 22, 2018 (UTC) You're comparing apples to oranges. "General" is a rank (or, a set of ranks), not a job description. Pirate and Serial Killer aren't ranks amongst the Criminals, they're specific subcategories. A colonel can have the same number of troops under their command as a brigadier-general, or even more, depending on the function. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 18:47, May 22, 2018 (UTC) : Also "Alien invaders and ancient conquerors" among others have not been referred to as Military Characters before, and I can already see the obvious problems in using such an overly broad and expansive category for them. No one has bothered to categorize the likes of Philippus and Steppenwolf as Military Characters before (Instead of the simply more appropriate "Generals"). And, if you do so, fridge logic immediately sets in. If those two are now "Military Characters", then why not the rest of the Amazons and Apokoliptians, considering they all have to serve in the Themescryan and Apokoliptian armed forces respectively? So now you find yourself in the farcical situation of have to list every Amazon and Apokoliptian (With a few exceptions, I guess) as a "Military Character". And it doesn't stop there, as it would also apply to other Alien races like the Khunds. A problem that can easily and simply be avoided by categorizing Philippus and Steppenwolf and other such characters as "Generals" when they are explicitly identified as such in the text. I really don't understand the resistance to creating this one category. I can't be possibly the only one to see the problems in using such a massively unfocused and cluttered category like "Military Characters" to list every one from an Easy Company grunt, to Julius Ceaser and Dawur of the Reach. It's not like we'll have any difficulty in populating "Generals"... Tec15 (talk) 16:36, May 25, 2018 (UTC) :::Tec has a point. If I were a user wanting to search for "Generals" specifically, it'd be much more convenient to have the category instead of sorting them from hundreds of "Military Members". Plus, under that logic, we'd have to get rid of Category:Soldiers as well. As Tec pointed out, if we allowed "Monocles" to be a category, I don't see the point of taking issue with "Generals". - S.S. (talk) 19:51, May 22, 2018 (UTC) Yes, we have to get rid of Soldiers. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 19:54, May 22, 2018 (UTC) ::::All generals are soldiers but not all soldiers are generals. If you've already got a structure for categorizing Soldiers, then all of the Generals should fit within that, right? Even if they don't, once you set up a category for Generals, there will be partisan clamorers (me, etc.) wanting one for Admirals and one for Doctors and one for Professors and so on and so forth, forever. Please no, kill it while you still can. Stoop Davy Dave (talk) 23:12, May 22, 2018 (UTC) : Umm, has it escaped your notice that we already have categories for "Doctors and Professors? Or do we have to get rid of them too because of what "partisan clamorers" might potentially want in the future? By this logic why bother having any occupation categories at all, if such basic jobs are deemed "too much"? Also, huge LOL at "partisan clamorers" demanding frivolous occupation categories, considering no one else has even bothered to create a single occupation category since I started making them. Tec15 (talk) 16:36, May 25, 2018 (UTC) That still doesn't take away that calling it "Generals" is pointless, and shows a misunderstanding of ranks in general. Another alternative could be to repurpose Military Characters as Military Officers. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 16:49, May 25, 2018 (UTC) ::::On behalf of the Partisan Clamorer community, I cry out against the injustice of an Army-privileged categorizing system, and call for establishment of a category page for Admirals. Stoop Davy Dave (talk) 23:30, May 25, 2018 (UTC) : You could repurpose Military Characters as Military Officers, but were would that leave non officer characters, since you want to delete "Soldiers" as well? There would be no place for the grunts in Easy Company to give just one example. Also, I have absolutely no problem with an "Admirals" category. Hell, if given the go ahead, I'll create and populate it myself. Tec15 (talk) 11:11, May 29, 2018 (UTC) ::::No no, that's a terrible idea, you shouldn't do that. Stoop Davy Dave (talk) 01:06, May 30, 2018 (UTC)